### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS , THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

ON RULE 24.4 MOTION TO REVIEW SUPERSEDEAS RULING

NO. 03
- 21
- 00291
- CV

Randall Crowder , Appellant

v. Philip Sanger, MD, Individually and Derivat iv ely on behalf of TEXO Ventures, LLC, TEXO Fund I GP, LL C, and TEX O Ventures I, LP , Appellee s

FROM THE 200T H DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D-1- GN -16-005403, THE HONORABLE ERIC SHEPPERD , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N P ER CURIAM Appellant Randall Crowder fi l ed a motion to re v ie w the tria l court ’ s order setting the amount of bond, deposit, or security needed to supersede the trial court ’ s judgment at $4,148,856.08. See Tex. R. App. P. 24.4. Finding that the trial court did not er r by concluding that Cro wder failed to provide co mp lete , de tailed information about his assets and liabilities from which the trial court could ascertain his net worth, we will affirm the trial court ’ s ord er.

BACKGROUND A fter a bench trial, the trial co ur t signed a judgment ordering Cr owder to pay Appe llee Phil lip Sanger $539,857.08 in a ctual damages and attorney ’ s fees and to pay App ellees2 TEXO Fund I GP, LLC, and TEXO Ventures I, LP ( Sanger) $3,608,999 in actual damage s and attorney ’ s f ees ; the judgmen t included amounts for exemplary damages that a re not relev ant to th e bo nd issue

. See id. R. 24.2(a)(1). T he trial court sanctioned Crowder for his acts and omissions includin g failures to respond to discovery r equests

. Crowder filed this appeal as well as a petition for writ of mandamus concerning a n order fin ing him and requiring further discovery responses ; this Court denied the petition concerning the penalties but conditionally granted it on the portion of the order requiring Cro wder to provi de acce ss to his information storage devices

. See In re Crowder , No. 03

- 21

- 00604

- CV, 2022 WL 1479474 (Tex. A pp.

— Austin , May 11, 2022, orig. proceedi ng) (mem. op.)

. On November 2, 2021, Crowder filed a Notice of Cash Deposit in Lieu of Supersedeas Bond (Notice ) , cl aimin g a net worth of

- $119,839 .91 ; t he Not ic e was base d on Crowder ’ s affid avit signe d on October 20, 202 1

. 1 Crowder deposited $125 cash with the trial
court clerk

. Sanger filed ob jections to th e Notice , moved to strik e th e affidavit , contested the

c l aim ed net worth, and sought discovery on t h e i ss u e. The t rial court held a he aring on Sanger ’ s objections on February 1 6 , 202 2. In its Ord er on Plaint iff s ’ Objections to Judgme n t Debtor Randall Crowder ’ s Net Worth Affi davit, Motion to Strike N et Wor t h A f fidav i t, Motion to Con test Claimed Net Worth,

a n d Setting Bond Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 24.2 ( Order) , the trial court found Sanger ’ s objections meritorious . It concluded that Crowder ’ s affidavit failed to satisfy the rule s requir ing that he provid e c o m p lete, d etailed information concerning his as se t s and lia bilit ies fro m which net worth can be ascertained and that he failed to present sufficient credible evidence at the

1 Crowd er asserts t hat he t ried to filed the Notice of Cash Depos it i n Lieu of Supersedeas Bond on October 22, 202 1, but the tr ia l co urt clerk ’ s office was unfamiliar wi t h a notice o f negative net worth a nd declin ed to file it until November 2, 2021.3 hearing regarding his asse ts and liabilities to m eet his burden to prov e his n e t w o r t h. See Tex. R. App. P. 24.2 (c) (1) ( affidavi t r equiremen ts) , (c) (3) ( burden of proof)

. T he court struck the affidavit and , based on Crowder ’ s failure to present c redible evidence to allow determi n ation of his net worth, set the required deposit at t h e f u ll am ount of compensatory damages and costs

a wa r ded in th e judgment. Crowder then filed a Rule 24.4 Motion to Revi ew Supersedeas Ruling (Motion) , Sanger filed a response , and Cro wder filed a reply.

APPLICABLE LAW A judgme nt debtor is entitled to s up e r sed e a nd defer payment of the judgment while pu r suing an appeal. Miga v. Jensen , 299 S.W.3d 98, 100 (Tex. 2009) ; see also Te x. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 52.006 ; Tex

. R. App. P. 24

. Ge nerally, when the judgment is for

mon ey, the am ount of bond or se c urity m ust equal the sum of the amount of comp en s atory dam ages , costs awarded in the judgment , and intere st for the estimated duration of the appeal. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem

. Code § 52.006(a); Tex. R. App. P. 24.2(a)(1). However, the amount of the bon d ma y not exceed the lesser of twenty

- five million do l lars or f ifty percent of the judgment debtor ’ s curr ent net worth. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 52.006(b); Tex. R. App. P. 24.2(a )(1). But w hen the trial court is u nable to determine a specif ic ne t

- wo rth a mount from the evidence, it is not an abuse of d i scretion to set the bond in the default amount dictated by Rule 24.2(a)(1)

. Texas Black Iron, Inc. v. N orth Am. Interpipe, Inc. , No. 14

- 20

- 00068

- CV, 2020 WL 10231117, a t *8 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1 4th Dis t.] J uly 28, 2020 , me m. o p. on motion )

. The judgm en t debtors have the burden of proof to establish net worth. G. M. Houser, Inc. v. Rodgers , 204 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2006 , op. on motion ) . O n any4 party ’s motion , w e review th e suf ficie n c y or e xce s siveness of the amount of security and the tri al
court ’ s e xercise of discretion in setting the amount of security

. Tex . Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 52.006(d); Tex. R. App. P. 24.4. We review a trial court ’ s order setting post

- judgment security

u n d e r an abu s e - of

- discretion standard

. G.M. Houser , 204 S. W. 3 d at 840 ; Ramco Oil & Gas Ltd. v. Anglo Dutch (Teng e) L.L.C. , 171 S.W.3d 905, 909

- 1 0 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.). However, we review ques tio ns of law de novo because a trial c o u r t ha s no discretion in determining what the law is or a pp l ying the law t o the facts and ther efore abuses its discretion if it misinterprets or misapplies the law. Perry Homes v. Cull , 258 S.W.3d 580, 598 (Tex. 2008 ); Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W .2 d 833, 8 4 0 (Tex

. 19 9 2)

. A court abuse s its discretion when it act s

w ithout re fe rence to any guiding rules or principles. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.

v. Robinson , 923 S.W.2d 549 , 558 (Tex. 1995). In assessing a bond, t he trial court abuses its discr etion if t h e evide nce i s legally or factually insufficient to support i t s finding s . G

. M. Houser , 204 S.W

. 3d at 840

. T o show the trial court abused its discretion by basing its findings on legally insufficient evidence, judgment debtors must show the eviden ce conclus i ve ly es t abli shes, as a matter of law, all vital facts i n s upport of their position. Id

. at 840

- 41. 2 In determining whether

2 L egal

- suf ficiency review of a finding on which the appellant had the burden of proof typically begin s with an examination of the ev i dence supporting the challenged finding followed by r eview of the entire r ec ord for conclusive support of appellant’s proposed contra ry finding. Dow Chemical Co. v. Francis , 46 S.W.3d 237, 241 (Tex. 2001). Here, however, the bond amount was set at hal f t he judgment amount by default no t becau s e the trial c ourt found that Cro wd er ’ s net worth exceeded twice the judgment amount but becau se the trial court found that Crowder failed to carry his burden to prove his net worth

. See Tex. R. App. P. 24; Texas Bl a ck Iron, Inc. v. N orth Am. Interpipe, I n c. , No. 14

- 20

- 00068

- CV, 2020 WL 10 23 1117, a t *8 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1 4th Dist.] July 28, 2020 , me m. o p. on motion )

. O n this issue, examining whether any evidence supports the finding that Crowder failed to carry hi s burden t o prov e his net worth dovet ail s with examini ng whether Cro wder pr ov e d his net worth. F or efficiency, w e will focus on the s econd Dow question to also answer the first.5 the evidence is legally sufficient to support the trial court ’ s determination of net worth, we consider all of the eviden ce in the li g ht m o st f avorable to the challenged finding and indu lg e every re as onable inference that would support it. City of Keller v. Wilson , 168 S.W.3d 802, 822 (Te x. 2005); Ramco Oil & Gas, Ltd. v. Anglo Dutch (Tenge) L.L.C. , 171 S.W.3d 905, 908 (Tex

. App.

— Ho u st o n [ 1 4 th D is t.] 2005 , order on motion )

. We must cred it favorable e vidence if a reasonable fact finder could and disregard contrary evidence unless a reasona ble fact finder could not. W e must determine whether the evidence before the court wou ld allow r ea s ona b l e

an d fair

- minded people to find the f acts at i ss u e. City of Keller , 168 S .W.3d at 827; Ramco , 171 S.W.3d at 910. In reviewing the factual sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court ’ s finding of net worth, we examine the en tire re c ord , con s i deri ng the evidence both in favor of a nd

con tra ry to the ch al lenged finding. See Cain v. Bain , 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986) (per curiam); Ramco , 171 S.W.3d at 910. We set aside the fact finding only if it is so contrary to the overwh elming weig ht of t he e vidence as to be clearly wr ong and unjust. P o ol v. For d M otor Co. , 715 S.W.2d 629, 635 (Tex. 1986); Ramco , 171 S.W.3d at 910. T he trial court, as fact finder, was t he sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be g iven t heir t e stim ony. See City of Keller , 168 S.W.3 d at 819 ; R amco , 171 S.W .3d at 910. We may not substitute our judgment for the fact finder ’ s even if we would reach a different answer on the evidence. See Maritime Overseas Corp. v. Ellis , 971 S .W.2d 402 , 40 7 (Tex

. 199 8).6 DISCUSSION Crowder contends that th e t rial cour t e r red by striking his affidavit and setting the bond at the full amount of the judgment ’ s compensatory damage and costs award . He contends that (1) the uncontested evidence es ta bl i shed his nega t ive net worth when he signed the affidav it , (2) t h e trial c ourt ab used its discretion by concluding that the de minimi s errors in his spreadsheet used to calculate his net worth w arranted the striking of his entire affidav it and the impo siti o n of the secu r ity required , and (3) the trial court ab used it s d iscretion if it accepted Sanger ’ s invitation to base any conclusions about the accuracy of Crowder ’ s ne t

- worth statement

on the pre vious disc o very - related sanction and contempt orders because his n et

- w ort h docu men ts should be evaluated on their own m eri ts

.
I. C r owder did not show that the trial co ur t us ed contempt - r elated findings in evaluating net
- worth documen ts or that it erre d if it did so. The trial court stated in the Order that Crowder did n o t provi d e “ s ufficie nt credible evidence ” regarding hi s as s ets and t hat he “ f ailed to present credible evidence for this Court to determine hi s net worth

. ” It did not state that its decision was based on anything other than an assessment of C rowder ’ s net

- worth af f idav it and the evidence p resented in the hear in g. Neither Crowder ’ s argument nor the reco rd shows that the trial cour t relied on its prior f indings of discovery abuse in evaluating the e vidence supporting Crowder ’ s affidavit of net w orth. F or th at reaso n alo ne, the third g round urged by Crowder does no t support ove rturning the Orde r. E ven if the trial court ’ s Order was influence d by Crowder ’ s prior discovery conduct, Crowder did not show error. T he trial court is the sole judge of the p artie s ’ c redibi l ity

. City of Keller , 168 S.W.3d at 819; Ramco , 1 7 1 S.W.3d at 910

. In Ruff v. Ruff , t he Dall as C ourt of A ppeals affirmed a trial court ’ s order finding that a debtor ’ s un controverted testimony about7 his net worth was not credible when that findi ng m ight h a ve b ee n affected by the deb tor ’ s prior defiance o f court or ders , production of very few docum ents , and other o bstructive conduct including failure to respond to interrogatories

. No. 05

- 18

- 00326

- CV, 2018 WL 2926639, at *4 (Tex. App.

— Dallas June 8, 2 018 , o p . on m otion ). The Dallas C ourt of A ppeals conc lu d ed that
t he record supported the trial court ’ s finding that the appellant did not present credible evidence from wh ich the trial could determine his net worth and that the trial court did n o t abu se i ts dis c reti on in setting the bond at the full judgment a m ount. Id

. Crowder presents no authority for the proposition that the trial court must ignore his prior conduct in the same lawsuit when

assess ing his credibility concerning the evidence o f his net wor th

. Like the t rial court in Ruff , t he trial court in this c ase found in other orders tha t C r owder did not fully respond to discovery requests , that his explanations for non - production were not credible , and that he knowingly and intenti o nally vio lated the t ri al court ’ s written order co mpe lling full compli an c e with di scovery reque sts

. See I n re Crowd er , 2022 WL 1479474 , at *1

- *2 ( discussing Crowder ’ s prior conduct)

. Even i f t he trial court considered Crowder ’ s pri or conduct when assessi n g Cro wder ’ s net

- wort h affid avit, it did not err. Cro wder ’ s g round th re e lacks me rit.

II. Crowder did not show that the trial court abused its discretion by striking his net worth affidavit or finding that he did not prov ide sufficient information t o ascerta i n his net worth . Cr ow der ’ s contentions in grounds one and two that t h e trial c ourt abused its discretion by sustaining objections to and striking his net

- worth affidavit also fai l , as does his assertion that he pro vided uncontroverted evidence supporti n g his aff idavit clai mi ng ne g ative net worth

. While finding that the af f idavit di d not provide complete , det ailed information concerning Crowder ’ s assets and liabilities , t he trial court did not specify which parti c ular8 aspects of the aff idavit were lacki n g . T he c ourt g enera ll y sustained Sanger ’ s objections , which included a complaint that the affidavit was filed based on an outdated net

- wo rth statement tha t includ ed items not sub stantiated by docu ments or a description of how Crowder found the amounts, v a l uati ons, or es timat es . Sanger objected that the affida vit signed o n O c tober 20 , 2021, and filed on November 2, 2021, relie d on values from account statements prepared through out the month of September 2021. Crowder testified at the heari ng t hat he pre p ared the net

- wo rth s ta tement to
meet an unspecified court deadline of S e ptember 2 8 , 2021 , and so used the most recent statement balance on various accounts available on that date ; this included a September 21, 2021 statement for his Phunware s tock . He di d not then updat e any v al ues be for e his O ctober 20 , 2021 affidavit

. T ho u gh Sanger also contend ed that Crowder should have updated the values and evidence for the February 2022 hearing, we will focus on the subject of the tr ial cou rt ’ s order : Crowder ’ s af

f id avi t an d its defic ie ncie s in conten t and supporting credible eviden ce . Sanger compl ain ed that Crowder did not explain how he calculated the value of his Phunware stock o r how he estimated the amount he owed on h is 2019 income taxes

. Sanger also compl a in ed that Crowd er di d not explain how he calculat e d the value of his ho m estead ot her than t o assert that the value was based on a June 2021 appraisal , did not set out his mortgage
amount , and did not discuss how payments on the mortgage affected the asset ’ s val ue by Octo ber 2 0 2 1. After pre hearing discovery , Sange r also cha ll e nge d Crow der ’ s cl aim of a $300,000 liability to his ex - wife. Although C rowder ’ s affidavit was prima facie evidence of his net worth, Sanger ’ s objec tions and related evidence r ebutted it in su fficien t par t

.9 A. C ro wder ’ s c ont ingent liability and the undisc lo s ed relate d continge nt asset Sanger object ed to Crowder ’ s inclusion of a $300,000 long

- term liability to his

ex - wife. Crowder testified at the hearing , correcting the liability valu e to $ 400,000 ar ising f rom his divorce decree ’ s require ment that he pay h is ex

- wif e fi fty cents of every dollar of the proceeds of a future sale of Te xo stock up to a cap of $ 400,000. Crowde r a rgues that his understatement of the conti ngent liability overs ta ted his net w orth by $100,000. However, the liability to hi s ex - wi f e is cont ingent on the sale of the s tock that Crowder testif ied at the hearing had not happened. T her e is no guarantee that Crowder will ever sell the shares or , if he does, what amo u nt he wil l rece i ve f or them. Further, Crowder’ s testimony indicates th a t his con tingent liability when realized would be matched by an asset of the fifty cents per dollar of sales proceeds th at C rowder i s not requ ired to pay his e x- wife ; Crowder did not l ist t his contingent asset . S till further, if the s ales pro c eeds exce ed $800,000 total, all of the a dditional sa les proceeds will belong to Crowder alone; Crowder did not list this contingent asset or support its value

. Sanger a sserted at the February 20 22 hea ring th at the

s to cks subject to this provision of Crowder’s divo rc e decree we re valued at around $2 million. Crowder misstated the value o f his contingent liability in his net

- worth statement , omitted the value of a contin gent asset that at least b alances the contingen t liability , and failed t o claim or prove the val ue of the co ntingent asset

. These facts support the trial c ourt’ s conclusion that Crowder ’s affidavit failed to provide complete, detailed information concerning the debtor ’s

asse ts and liabilities and that Crowder failed to present credible evidence from wh ich the court could determine his net worth

.10 B. Unce rt ainty about t he v alue o f Phunware shares

. Cro wder ’s net -w orth statement listed P hunware sto ck with a current m arket value of $86,300.52 in an individual account and $225,293.55 in a plan account for a t otal of $311,594.07 on September 29, 2021. S an ge r obj ected th at Cr owder d id not show how th ose values were calculated. I n his brief supp orting his objections , Sanger asser ted that the value of the Ph unware shares fluctuated , listing the following v al ues in a five

- week period in the fall of 2021: date event p rice pe r share September 2 9 net -w orth statement prepared $0.94 October 20 aff idavit signed $1.05 October 22 Crowder attempts to file affidavi t $8.74 November 2 clerk acc epts affidavit $4.57 Sanger also noted th a t t he pri ce h ad not dr opped b elow $ 2.09 per share since t he affidavit was filed , and tha t t he shares traded at $ 2.91 pe r share on November 30, 2021, and closed at $3.5 8 per share on Febru ary 1 6 , 2022, the da y b efore the hearing. Sanger contrasted the $311,594.07
t otal value re ported by Crowder in the Se ptember 29 net -worth statement with the $2,099,148.52 value based on the s hare price on November 2 when t he affidavit was filed

— a $1,787,554.45 difference. Cr o wder argued that the fluctuations in valu e are i r releva nt b ecause th e cou rt s shou ld focus on the a ffidavit when it is signed. He asse rted that average value o ver the course of
a year was $1.98 per share and testified that t he share value was “ extremely vo latile. ” The state d value of the P hun war e sh a res is pro blematic fo r Cro wd er not because
sto ck value fluctuates but because t he val ue he used from three weeks before the date he signed his affidavit did not sh ow his “ cur rent net worth ” when he filed hi s a ffidavit and made the cash11 depo sit in l ieu of b ond

— th e va lue he must prov e in order to post a bond for less than the full ju dgment amo unt. See Tex. R. A pp. P. 24.2 ( a)(1)(A)

. Cases that Crowder cites state that t he relevant v alue is the judgment debtor ’ s “ assets minus current liabilities at the tim e the b o nd is
set ” 3 an d asses s an affidavit based on a balance sheet prepared the sa me dat e as the affidavit. 4 Though Crowder testifie d that he used values from the most recen t account statements from Septemb er to support his net

- worth statements, h e showed in p r eparin g his r esponse to Sa ng er ’ s obje ction to his affidavit that he could obtain v alues on specific dates a part from end

- of

- cycle
statem ents

. While we do no t hold that the underlying asset values must a l ways be derived on the
exact date of the affidavit t o allo w the t rial cou rt to a ssess a deb tor ’ s net worth , the trial court could re as ona bly determin e that a thre e - week

- old value of what Crowder understandably described as a n extremely volat ile asset di d n ot provide complete , detailed informatio n from whic h net w orth c ould be a sc ert ained as of the date of the affidavit or the date the af fidavit and cash deposit were filed. See id. R. (a)(1)(A) , (c)

. 5 Cro wder as sert s that the valuation of the Phunware sh ar e s is somehow imma terial because he is prohibited b y an a greed order from se lli ng the m . H e argues that he c annot use them to post a bo nd , but that Sanger ’ s ability to collect on a judgment is protected, effectuating the purpose of a n appeal bond. The r es t raint on sales do es not render the value of this a sset i mm aterial under t he ru les. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 24 authorizes an injunction to

3 EnviroPo we r, LLC v. Be ar, S t ea rns & Co. , 265 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tex. App.

— Hous to n [ 1 st Dist.] 2008, p et. denied).

4 T ex as Custom Poo ls, Inc. v. Clayton , 29 3 S.W.3 d 299, 307

- 08, 314 (Tex. App.

— El Paso 2009, op. on order [mandamus denied] )

. 5 Because Crowder does not argue that he car ried h is burden to prove his net worth on an y o th e r date, we need not examine the proof on any other dat es.12 prohibit debtors from dissipating or transferring assets to avoid sat isfaction of the judgment but does n ot exclude such assets from the calculation of the debtor’s net worth. Furt he r, the agreed order could be withdrawn or amended by the tr ial court if ne cessary . T he order restricting his ability to sell the stocks does not affect our analysis. C. Uncertainty regarding 2019 income- tax liability O n the Septe mb er 202 1 net -wor th state me nt supporting the October 202 1 affidavit , Crowder list ed hi s 2019 taxes as a n “ estimated ” $40,392 liability. Sanger object ed that Crowder failed to explain how he estimated that amo unt. A t the he aring on objections, Sanger discus sed a 2019 income

- tax r et urn obtained fro m Crowder ’ s mortgage lender that showed Cro wder claiming a $2 ,94 0 refund

. 6 Crowder’ s attorney res pon ded that Crowder in stead had a $64,000 tax lia bility in 2019 an d said he would in troduce a return s ho wing that in his

ex amination of Crow de r; we find no such testimony or exhibit in t he record befor e us. Crowd er argues in his reply brief on this motion that
Sanger is in possession of both Crowder ’ s Original and A me n ded 2 0 19 Tax Retu rn and knows for a fact

— yet misr e presen ts— that Crowder w as en titled to a refund when he owed additional taxes, even beyond the amount he inadvertently listed, which Crowder ’ s counsel stated at the contest hearing. Alth o ugh the wrong ta x r eturn was appended to the affidavit, Sanger is aw a re of the actual amount C row der owed on his taxes. Sanger has no support for any of thes e ar guments.

Crowder does not cite to testimony or evidence supporting his claim that he owed or paid $64,0 00 in i nco me taxes in 2019 or that Sanger is in poss ession of an a mended 2019 retur n and

6 Sange r attac hed pages appearing to be from Crowder ’ s 2019 income tax re turn , marked a s Plaintiff ’ s Exhibit 8, showing Crowder claiming a $2,940 refund.13 is misrepresenting the amounts due. This Court cannot assess whether the trial cour t wrongly ig nored evidence when it is unclea r w hether the evidence was in the recor d. D. Othe r disputed assets Crowder admitte d that the $5,650 value he listed for fir ea rms and jewelry was mistakenly not added to the homestead e quity to create the househo ld

- assets subtotal in the net

w orth st atement ; instead, t h e househo ld assets subtotal was th e s ame as the amount of homestead equity he cla imed s eparat ely from the fire ar ms -and- jewelry line item

. This math error did not prevent the trial court or this Co urt from ascertaining Crowder ’ s net w orth. If th is wer e the only issue with the affidavit, t he trial court or we could recalculate his net wort h. Cro wder testified th at he had recently obtained an additional $21,000 in crypto cu rre ncy through a $1, 000 company gift and $20,000 from h is salary, adding to the $69.34 he declared as an asset as of Se pte mber 28, 2 02 1, but Crowder intimated that the tr a nsactio n occurred after th e n et -worth statement and affidavit were f i led and c loser to the February hear ing. The failure to inclu de the later purchase did not undermine the accuracy of the net

worth stat em ent regarding Cro wder ’ s assets when he filed the a ffidavi t. Sanger also co mpl ained that Crowder did not explain how he calculate d the $104,000 he claimed as homestead equity ot her than to assert that the value was based on a June 2021 appraisal of $924,000 less his $820,000 purchase price . Sanger co mplains that Crowder did no t dis cuss how mortgage payments by October 2021 might have altered his equity i ntere st . Sanger did n ot produce any evidence disput ing the claimed appraised value or the purchase p ri ce . Even if we assume that the appraised value of the property remained s ta t ic over a four

- month period , Crowder did not make clear wh ether the entire $ 820,000 “ purchase price ” is entirely a mort gage liability and whether that liability changed in the mont hs after the s ale due14 to int erest or payments . Crowde r provided in complete information for courts to ascertain the value of this portion of his net worth at the time he signed or filed h is affi davit. E. No error in striking the affidavit By ground two, Crowder contends that the trial court ab used its discret ion by concluding tha t d e minimi s errors in his spreadsheet used to calculate hi s net worth w arranted t he striking of his entire affi dav it and the imposition of the security required

. But t he trial co u rt did not abuse its discretion by view ing the errors and omissions discu ss ed above as more than de minimis

. Crowder understated the amoun t of his contingent divorce liability by $100,00 0 but omitted the contingent asset of equal or greater value accru in g concomitant ly with the stock sale
tr iggering t he contingent payment ; San ge r a sserted at the hearing with out contra diction that t he sh ares whose sale would trigge r Crowder’s obligation to pay h is ex

- wife were w orth about $2 million

— approximately $1. 6 wo uld remain his . Most c ritically, C rowder did not claim or prov ide evidence of thi s ass et from which the trial court could ascertain his net worth. Further, Cr owder used a three

- week

- old v alu e fo r his P hu nware shares, and evidence showed that the outdated va lue of this “ extreme l y volatile ” asset did not estab l ish its value when Cro wder late r filed his aff idav it to set his security amount ; though Crowder claimed t hat the difference between the valu es on September 29 and October 20 w as small, the discrepancy ex ists and reasonably
cast more d oubt on the c redibi li t y of Cr owder’ s asserti ons of va lue

. Cro wder ’ s estimate of his 2019 tax liability was inconsistent with both the tax form in this record sho wing he cla imed a refund and with the amended tax form he cl ai med would show th at he owed more taxes tha n he had es t imated on the net- wort h st ateme nt. The trial court did not abuse its discretio n by striking th e affidav it if it concluded that the se dis crepancies and uncertainties regarding the accuracy of the it em s on the net

- worth15 s tatement are not de minimis erro rs and u ndermine his affidav it of ne t worth

. Although the failure to add the firearms and jewelry value was fixable and no error was shown in the crypto value as of the time of the affidavit, the discr ep a ncies and uncertain ties concerning the divorce liab i lity, t he Phunware valu e, t he ta x liability , and the home asset ’ s net val ue suppor t the trial

co urt’s decision. On this record, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that Crowder did not provide comple te information regarding his ass et s and liabilities that wou ld al low the trial cou rt t o ascertain his net worth. F. Sufficient e vidence supports court’s decision not to lower the bond amount. By ground one, Crowder contended that the unconte sted evidence esta blished his negative net wort h when h e signed the affidav it

. H e urges that courts must focus on his net worth a t the time he filed his aff idavit. He contends that , regard less of errors or omissions in his

n et

- worth statement supp orting his affidavit, no evidence in the record support s a fin ding that he has a n e t wo rth of $8,297,712.16

— the net w or th that would set the bond amount at the full valu e of the relevant portion of th e judgment. See Tex. R. App. P. 24.2(a)(1)(A). Crowder sugges ts that , if courts find discrepanc ies in the ne t-worth statemen t, we ca n re calcu late the deb tor’ s net worth rather than set the bo nd at the value of the relevant p ortions of the j udgment as the court of appeals did in LMC Complete Automotive, Inc. v

. B urke , 229 S.W.3d 469, 485- 486 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist. ] 2007, pet. den ied ). How ever, the re cord in LMC provided sufficient information from wh ich the court could recalculate net worth. Id. at 486. Here, t he trial court conclude d that Crowder failed to provide complete information from which the tr i al cour t could ascertain his net w orth at the time the affidavit was signed or filed or at the t ime the hearing was h eld. Although the evidence in the record does not establish that Crowder has a net wo rt h o f $8.2 million, th at misplaces the16 burden

. T he de fault amount of securit y re quire d is the full amount of the compensatory damages , interest to accrue during the appeal , and co sts awarded in the judgment , and Crowder must establish that h e has a net w or t h low enough to just ify reducing the bond amount

. S ee Te x. R. Ap p . P. 24.2 (c). The trial court concluded that he did not carry his b urden to pro vide an affidavit cont aining complete, detailed inform ation concerning his assets and liabiliti es from whic h h is net worth c o u ld be ascertained. Id. The rec o rd su ppo rts the trial cour t ’ s concl usion that Crowder did not carry his burden. We agre e w ith courts who conclud ed that “ when the trial court is unable to determine a specific net

- worth amount fr om the ev i denc e, it is not an abuse of discretion to set
t h e bon d i n the default amou nt d ictat ed by Rule 24.2(a)(1)

. ” Texas Black Iron, Inc. , 2 020 WL 10231117, at *8 ; s ee also Ruff, 2018 WL 2926639, at *4 ; Newsome v. N orth Texas Neuroscience Ctr., P.A. , No. 08

- 0 9

- 0 0025

- CV, 2009 WL 3738504, at *5 (Tex. App.

— El P aso Nov. 9 , 2009 , op. on mot ion )

.
CO NCLUSION W e overrule Crowder ’ s grounds of error r egarding the setting of the appeal bond. We affirm the trial court ’ s order setting the amount of the appeal bond in t he default amou nt dictated by Rule 24.2(a)(1). Order e d June 24 , 2022.

Be fo re Chie f Justic e Byrne, Justices Kelly and Smith